IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. HEMALATHA, J.
Mathiya @ Sundarrajan - Appellant
Versus
State by the Inspector of Police, Gudalur Police Station - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 753 of 2016, Crl. M.P. No. 11662 of 2016
Decided On : 19-07-2024
IPC - Murder Conviction - Section 302, 304, 428 Cr.P.C - The court upheld the conviction of the appellant for culpable homicide, interpreted the evidence of domestic violence and corroborated testimonies as sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of killing his wife, following a history of domestic abuse. Evidence showed he physically assaulted her and witnesses corroborated the victim's fearful behavior prior to her death.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed both witness testimonies and medical evidence, concluding they collectively demonstrated the appellant's guilt in causing the victim's death through violent means.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed murder as charged, under the relevant sections of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The consistent testimonies of witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence indicating the manner of death, established a strong case for conviction under Section 304 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal is dismissed and conviction upheld.
JUDGMENT :
R. HEMALATHA, J.
1. The appellant stood charged for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in S.C No.12/2015.
2. The learned trial court Judge, after full trial, convicted and sentenced the appellant, vide her judgment dated 05.01.2016, as detailed hereunder:
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Section 304 (Part ii) IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. |
| The aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently. | |
| The period of sentence already undergone is set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. | |
3. The case of the prosecution as could be discerned from the oral and documentary evidence is as follows:
3.1. The deceased Sivakumari is the wife of the appellant Mathiya @ Sundarrajan and daughter of Kandasamy (P.W.1) and Manikavalli (P.W.2). Kanageshwari (P.W.17) and Vigneshwaran (P.W.18) are her siblings.
3.2. The deceased and the appellant got married ten years prior to the occurrence and they were blessed with three children by name Nishanth (10 years), Nivedha (8 years) and Ashvitha (3 years). The appellant, suspecting the fidelity of his wife (deceased) would beat her frequently and two months prior to the date of occurrence, the appellant lit six camphors on her right palm and asked her to prove her good conduct. Since Sivakumari sustained burn injuries on her right palm she was taken to Vinayaka Hospital, Sulthan Bathery on 24.02.2014.
3.3. Dr.Randhir Krishnan (P.W.28), examined Sivakumari on 24.02.2014 and found that she had sustained burn injuries on her right palm. She was treated as an out patient and was prescribed medicines. The Medical Records of Vinayaka Hospital, Sulthan Bathery, pertaining to the victim was marked as Ex.P1.
3.4. On 16.04.2014, the appellant started beating his wife suspecting her fidelity and the deceased ran to the house of Padmanaban (P.W.3), her neighbour to take shelter. She knocked the doors of P.W.3's house and when he opened it, Sivakumari ran inside his house and hid under a cot. However, the appellant who came behind her dragged her to his house and started beating her. P.W.3 in fact heard noise from the house of the appellant beating the victim and she crying but tried to sleep as this was not something unusual between the appellant and his wife. He was also afraid that the appellant would abuse him in filthy language if he questions him. However, at about 2.00 a.m. on 17.04.2014, the appellant knocked the doors of Padmanaban (P.W.3) and asked him to bring his Auto to take his wife to the hospital but P.W.3 refused. However, he saw the appellant at about 3.00 a.m. proceeding towards the main road taking his wife on his shoulders. P.W.3 immediately rushed to the house of P.W.1 (father of the victim) and informed him. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W18 came down to the house of the appellant and enquired the children who in turn informed them that the appellant assaulted their mother on her abdomen, chest and also hit her head on the wall. The children had seen their mother with bleeding injuries and in fact they were all crying. At about 07.00 a.m. P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.18 came to know that Sivakumari had died.
3.5. Dr.Suresh Rajkumar (P.W.20), examined Sivakumari at about 03.00 a.m. on 17.04.2014. He was informed by the appellant that she fell down from upstairs of their house. According to P.W.20, Sivakumari was unconscious and her blood pressure was very low. He therefore, referred her to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Ooty. The Accident Register was marked as Ex.P15.
3.6. Dr. Karthik Balaji (P.W.21), examined the victim at about 06.00 a.m. on 17.04.2014 and declared her as 'brought dead'. The Accident Register issued by him was marked as Ex.P16. He then sent the body of the deceased to the mortuary of the hospital.
3.7. P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.18 went to the Government Hospital, Ooty and saw the body of the deceased. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to Gudalur Police Station and lodged a written complaint (Ex.P2) with Thiru. Arun (P.W.26), the t
Evidence of domestic violence, when corroborated by witness testimonies and medical examinations, can establish guilt in murder cases under IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on clear and cogent witness testimony, the role of witnesses in delivering justice, and the distinction between related and interested....
The court upheld the conviction under Section 325 IPC, affirming that a lesser charge can be sustained even if the greater charge is not proven, provided there is sufficient evidence.
The conviction for murder upheld, highlighting that circumstantial evidence and established patterns of cruelty can substantiate claims beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for complete and conclusive circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as emphasized by legal principles from ....
Dying declaration - Corroboration from the oral dying declarations made by the deceased, coupled with the evidence of Doctor.
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must conclusively establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any gaps can benefit the accused.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.